SIA's plane crash: Why? How? What now?

SINGAPORE: The salient point about the Singapore Airlines (SIA) Boeing 747 crash in Taipei last Tuesday is that the pilot had steered the plane onto the wrong take-off path.

SIA has acknowledged that unambiguously, based on Taiwanese investigations. But troubling questions remain about the contributory factors. This was not a crash at sea, where evidential difficulties are enormous.

In this instance, the flight crew and the air controllers of Taipei's Chiang Kai-shek International Airport who guided the flight of SQ 006 are available for questioning. The evidence is sitting on the runway in the strewn wreckage and the positioning of the concrete blocks and construction machinery which brought the plane down.

Weather data of the fateful night in question, which would give clues on visibility and wind speed, are in the computer. The airport authorities say their equipment and safety features meet international standards, but the crucial question is, could the airport have done more to prevent the accident?

Why was runway 05R, which was closed and not in use, not sealed off? Why were there no clear signs or warning lights? Even if part of the 05R strip was used as a taxiway for aircraft, clear warning signage or barricades could be emplaced. Why were the 05R lights switched on when the runway was not in use? There is uncertainty as to whether only the center lights were on, or the boundary lights as well.

Control-tower data can ascertain that fact, or staff on duty should be able to provide the answer. This could be crucial evidence, as it may be a factor in the SIA pilots being misguided. Why were heavy equipment and construction debris not removed from 05R as standard procedure at the end of a work day?

This is a working airport, exposed to high winds. If it is intended also for emergency use, as reported in the Taiwan media, what were the mechanical diggers doing there? Might the airport have been closed temporarily as it was being lashed by rain and strong winds that night and, presumably, had visibility problems?

Airports have been closed for less. Should the captain of SQ 006 have chosen to proceed in such atrocious conditions? Finally, did the two pilots of a China Airlines flight behind 006 have time to react when, as was reported, they saw the SIA jet in take-off mode on the wrong runway?

The fetching of the answers need not become a disputatious matter if both parties -- Singapore Airlines and the operators of Chiang Kai-shek airport -- are to draw the correct lessons. SIA has acted responsibly in this crisis, a corporate handling that does credit to the high standards in service and management it sets for itself and the global aviation industry.

There is no reason at all to doubt that the Taiwan Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Aviation Safety Council, the regulatory agency, will be as thorough in seeking the answers.

As the authority that oversees the running of civilian airports on the island, the CAA's first concern would naturally be to make Taiwanese airports the safest they can be. This is an operational necessity as endemic storm conditions off the China coast have not been kind to the Taiwanese air sector.

In the past five years, there have been 16 accidents in Taiwan, including the SIA crash, with the loss of 597 lives. This is one of the world's highest accident rates. Eighty-two people are dead as a result of a tragic human error last week.

The pain the families feel will be little relieved, whatever emerges from the probe. But SIA, as well as airport operators anywhere in the world, have a duty to the traveling public. They cannot stand still.

-- The Straits Times/Asia News Network